Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mic check. Mic check.

Uh, welcome to the September 16th planning commission meeting. All members are present. Um, would you join us in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Let's see. Uh per the city's meeting rules and procedures, public comments are generally limited to five minutes for less time if a large number of speakers is anticipated or if approved by the chair will be doing five minutes tonight. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the planning commission and if relevant the commission may direct them to staff. Speakers can also follow up directly with staff during regular city business hours. Please file a speaker card with the administrative secretary on the form provided at the back of the chambers over there and over there. Um during this portion of the meeting, those in the council chambers are permitted to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Public comments for scheduled agenda items should wait until that time. Um please note that the commission's actions are final unless an appeal is filed with the city clerk within 10 calendar days. April through the chair. We have one speaker card, Danny. Oh, there it goes. There you go. For the record. Uh, well, I'm freestyling today because things that have happened have happened. The firehouse is going to be built. that is the way it's going to be. I will say that I spoke to Assistant Chief Mallister and I told him, "Dude, I hope I'm wrong. I really hope I'm wrong because if I'm right, that means that people have been endangered that it has been a danger to the public for trying to squeeze that big butt ugly brown fire station on Second Street.

the plan to put the Kacosta County, I know it's outside of your purview, on Brentwood Boulevard. I honestly think that's a good idea. I think it's a bad location, but I think it's a good idea. My only hesitancy is because Supervisor Burgess is the one that's pushing it, which is a sad thing to say that even projects I agree with, I have to take with them. Keep an eye on it. Um, I want to thank Dame Whisper Lane. And if you don't know who that is, you're not on Facebook. Um, I wish I I boy I can honestly say for those who are on Facebook and know what I'm talking about, it's not me. Whoever this person is, they're giving me a run for my money. And to be honest, I'm just up here now to show my envy. So, uh, lastly about the emporium, I know, and again, it depends because there's the real world where we have more people in front of me than behind me. And then we have the world of Facebook. And I can't talk about the world of Facebook because it's just ridiculous. But out there there's a concerted effort to silence free speech. Some guy said something that was upsetting to a person and it has to do with the

death of someone earlier this week. For the record, I can't stand the guy. I can't stand his rhetoric, his beliefs. I don't think anyone should be killed for their rhetorics or their beliefs. And on that same vein, I don't think people should lose their jobs for voicing an opinion that is counter. What really bothers me, and I'm just saying it here again because I'm freestyling, is that there are screams of off with their heads and things like that. Even here, uh, when there are questionable proposals, visa v the firehouse and instead of some type of open debate, it becomes a zero someum game. for me to win, you have to lose. And I don't think, well, for one thing, I don't think you guys think that way. You have robust debates. You decide and then the council then the council. But I hope you continue with your processes. I agree with a lot. some I don't, but I do appreciate the effort that you five and staff do and I just want that on the record. And if you're not on Facebook, I would join just to look up Dame Whisper Lane. Classic classic. Thank you. At this time, chair, we have no other

speakers. Thank you so much. Okay. Our next item is the consent calendar. There's one set of minutes for the regular meeting of August 5th, 2025. Is there any discussion or do I have a motion? I move

I move for the minutes. The chair real quick. Uh, Commissioner Roberts, can we move that mic closer to your mouth so we can register the volume? Thank you. Yes, April. I move. Do we have a second? Yeah, I'll second. All in favor? I I.

Motion carries. Moving into public hearings, we have um two items tonight. Uh the first is a conditional use permit CUP 24-009 and design review DR24-014 for a new 3520 ft commercial building featuring two suites, one for a Chipotle restaurant and the other for a future unidentified tenant. Patio area, drive-thru, and associated site improvements on a 0.66 66 acre parcel located at 3121 Balfur Road, APN012-020-015. Miguel,

thank you uh commissioner or chairperson and uh good evening to the commission and members of the public. Miguel, city of Bwood Planning Division here to present uh DR24-014 and CUP24-009 which uh proposes a shell building uh located at 3121 Balffor Road. Um the site location has a general plan designation of general commercial. It is within the plan development five planning district. So PD zoning and it's within sub area B which is a commercial sub area. The proposed um commercial building is located uh within the shops at Fair View commercial center. The specific request is for a new 3520 ft shell building which will feature two suites. uh one has been identified to be a Chipotle restaurant um consisting of outdoor seating and um it will also have a drive-thru component. The second suite hasn't been identif or a tenant for the second suite hasn't been identified yet. Associated site improvements are going to be trash enclosure, parking area, and lighting. Most of which has already been constructed for the original approval for the shops at Fair View. Access to the site can be taken off Fair View Avenue or U Bell Road. Parking um the proposed project proposing proposes 19 spaces on site. However, the overall center needs uh 406 uh parking spaces uh including Chipotle and the project will be bringing in um or the the total site or the total parking within the site will be 421

parking spaces. The applicants also proposing 6uh 800 or 6,837 square feet of uh landscaping. The drive-thru component uh would require a conditional use permit. Um it is one lane. It's uh the one lane is going to be um surrounded by a 3-ft high CMU wall and um directly in front of the pickup window will be a 10- foot high uh screen wall. As you can see on the bottom image, the drive-thru will function as a digital pickup only, which means uh there's no speaker box or menu board. Uh people will generally place their orders online through their mobile app, make payment, and then just show up at the pickup window to pick up their food. The architecture of the building uh would incorporate design elements to match the existing architecture of the shops at Fairview which uh include towers, a tile base and projecting corners. The proposed architecture also proposes a flat roof um and the parapit would be above mechanical equipment. So it's impossible for the mechanical equipment to be seen from any vantage point. The architecture also features vertical and horizontal projections to break up its massing. As noted before, the drive-thru component uh does require a conditional use permit per the PD5 zoning. And um actually two of the draft conditions of approval would require that um drive-thru hours of operations be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily. And also down the line, if the applicant

decides that they do want a speaker or menu board, they would have to get an amendment for this conditional use permit by the planning commission at a uh public hearing. Consistency and recommendation. So the project is consistent with the general plan general commercial land use designation. It's consistent with the PD5 subaria B zoning designation. uh a mitigated neg negative declaration M andD was adopted um back in February 1st of 20 uh 2005 for the whole center and the project also qualifies as a class 32 categorical exemption um for infill development. So, uh, staff would recommend that the planning commission adopt resolution 25-013 approving conditional use permit 24-009 and, uh, adopt resolution number 25-014 approving design review 24-014. And both of these would be, uh, subject to certain findings and conditions. Uh, that would conclude staff's presentation. I'm here if uh, there's any questions and I believe the applicant's here as well for any questions. Thank you, Miguel. Uh, does the planning commission have any clarifying questions for staff? Gerald, go ahead.

So, was this uh was this submitted and completed before the new drive-thru um regulations that we passed a couple months ago? Well, the city council hasn't formally adopted a uh new ordinance regulating drive-throughs. So, um yes. And second question, the hours is that the maybe maybe I should wait for the applicant, but that hours is the hours the 7:00 in the morning to 11:00 p.m. That's the hours they're allowed to open, not necessarily the hours they're going to be opening. Correct.

That's the hours that the applicant requested per their project description. And another question is how far is that from the houses? Like there's a drive. How far is that? The drive-thru itself? No, no, no. So, they're kind of like at the corner and the next the closest thing is like a residential home. How far is it from that residential? Let me um Sorry. Are you talking about this uh northern portion of the drive-thru or the western portion of the drive-thru or the pickup window on north on Fair View

right north of that property? How far is that house or those houses from? So about 50 ft. 50 ft. Okay. all my questions. Um, the queuing capacity for the for the drive-thru, and apologies if I missed it on there. How many cars could be stacked in there? Is it nine? It's nine if uh if you're counting from the window itself. From the window itself. Yeah, you wouldn't count after the window.

Thank you. Uh, however, I I would point out that um the ENT there really wouldn't be queuing all that much because of the the way the digital pickup functions and that that might be for the applicant because I with the digital um just I'm curious just what that looks like and forgive my naivity on that because I I don't ever do it. So I was I'm more interested in just that what that process looks like. It sounds like it's not going to create an issue from a capacity standpoint, but I'm just could ask the applicant that Thank you.

If I may. Um I'm looking at the towers on this and I'm wondering this height. Um and so are there other structures? I know where this is, but I can't recall structures being at that height. Would this uh surpass the the height uh structures uh that are in that uh strip mall? So, this uh all the structures at the strip mall have at least two um towers each

and uh this one's actually a little bit shorter than uh the prominent ones like the main um anchor buildings. It's a little bit smaller than those. So, it wouldn't surpass the height of those.

Just just looked. Okay, great. Thanks, Um and um I have no questions as well at this time. The public is permitted to address the planning commission. Remarks are limited to five minutes per person except for the applicant. We'll have 10 minutes and the applicant does go first. Does the applicant wish to address the commission? Good evening commission. My name is Sukjit Tony Singh representing Mr. Himat Gwal uh the owner developer for this project. Um we are really thankful to the city staff uh and we worked diligently and addressed all the issues comments before appearing before the planning commission today. Uh and I am here with the applicant and the chipotle team to answer any questions. Thank you so much. And

do we have any questions for the applicant? I guess should I go through everybody here? Um if you if you just want to light if you have a question and I'll call it

uh sure just a couple questions. Yes sir. Um so why 7 to 11 just out of curiosity. Um it's can I bring the chipotle uh representative here? Yes absolutely. Hello. Uh, my name is Kim De Guzman with Chipotle Mexican Grill. I'm a design manager.

Hi, I'm Amber Reed with Chipotle. Um, our typical hours are around 10:30 to 11 or midnight. And we like just to give visibility. We have a whole crew in that comes in very early in the in the building. So, it's easier and a little bit more like information forward if we let everybody know is like there's going to be a crew there probably at 5:00 a.m. We use earlier hours than our opening hours and applications. So, so are you saying that even though it's saying 7 to 11, you're not you're I'm I'm just want to make sure I'm clear. You're not intending to be open at se like doesn't serve necessarily breakfast food. So, I'm just trying to figure out is it the intention to be open at 7 in the morning or is the intention to be open a little later?

Our standard opening time is about 10:30 and you're correct. We don't offer breakfast at this time. And then the other question while I got you there is um and forgive me I couldn't I went through this thing several times I couldn't I couldn't figure out is there going to be a sit down restaurant inside or no there is there is okay those are my questions. Yeah thank you. Um can you can you just walk me through the digital pickup and like is there anything that would potentially create an issue where cards could get stacked?

There shouldn't be. So, you order on your app and in our app, you choose the time of your pickup. And I've had this happen to me. You get there before your pickup and they ask you to go around or pull forward. Um, there should be, you know, ample parking for people to pull forward and then either our crew can bring it out or the customer goes inside. So, there isn't a time that you're sitting waiting. You've already ordered before you've ever entered the the we call it a Chipotle lane. before you've ever entered the Chipotle lane, your order is being prepped. And so typically, you just should pull forward, give your name, and a bag comes out. That's it. You've paid. Okay. That's the extent of the interaction. Got it.

So it moves really quick. Okay. Yeah. And I And part of reason I bring that up too is because to your point, Commissioner Johnson, there's a little bit I mean, we're we're away from homes, but we're not completely away from homes. And so I I think a little bit about the just is there a stacking potential and could that create traffic in the in that in that area. Um but it sounds like your process is pretty straightforward and you don't really see a lot of a lot of problems as a result. That's correct. We've done studies in suburban areas where at max peak during lunch our maximum stack would be around four to five cars, four being the most common.

Gotcha. Um, and operationally speaking, the restaurant has to make the food about 10 to 15 minutes prior to the actual desired date uh, sorry, the time that the um that the person orders. So, good. Thank you. And again, another reason, too, is there's been some um, a little bit of public comment that's come via written, you know, that had some concerns about the drive-thru. And so, I just think it's good to kind of help the residents, particularly if they're listening in this in that area, Yeah. understand what the process is. So, thank you. And Chair Meredith Roberts, do you have any

Well, no. I know that we have a Chipotle on my end of um Brentwood and uh it it is smoothly. It moves quite nicely. Um your um your system is kind of flawless. I mean, it's a standard that uh has been implemented and apparently works very well uh especially in quiet neighborhoods. So, for that, I can I can attest what I've seen is um no bombardment with noise and stacking. Uh I have not seen that in any of the Chipotles, not just here, but in in other states. It's just a standard that you guys have in place. So, for the public, uh, this is not your typical drive-thru or what's the term, Eric.

I'm sorry, not the term for It's not It's not your typical drive-thru. It is it is a yeah it's a it's a it's a different uh style of uh pickup service food pickup service and so to that end um very different and I'm hoping that the public knows there's a differentiation between the Jack in the Boxes and the Burger Kings to that of Chipotle. Yep. That's all I just had a comment by chair brand.

Um only questions I really had were mostly around circulation in the lot. Um there's great plans for the uh fire uh travel as well as the um garbage uh travel. But you know because the entry is on the north side north end of the building and then the exits on the south side. I just I was kind of it was unclear to me at least where what the intended flow of the vehicular traffic is to and then from the restaurant. Um I don't know if there were any additional details there. Do you mean specifically into the Chipot lane or just parking in front of the building?

It's primarily focused on the on the drive-thru. Um so what I envisioned at least is you had two options. One is the right turn into from Fair View and the other one is you make a left on from Balffor and go up north past the CVS and around.

Um I'm I can save some of my other comments for later, but I just I was cur because normally we'll get some sort of rough plan that indicates what the circulation looks like. Um got it. We I imagine we probably wouldn't want to add, you know, significant stress on existing tenants that operate within the Fair View Shopping Center. So, just getting a clearer picture of what that might look like uh would be helpful for me at least.

So, we were and I don't have an exhibit or anything to show you that shows this traffic flow, but um the landscaping curb area on the north side. Um, for us, we thought that it was really nicely kind of pushed back a little bit for that right hand kind of almost a U-turn to the right entrance. And it's it's rounded and that curb is broad enough. It's not super narrow. So, we were anticipating quite a bit even from the light at Balforiew, you know, either coming in at the curb cut to the south of the building or for our our operations also at the north end of the building. I don't know if I'm answering your question. I I think so. I Okay.

I haven't I didn't measure that out on GIS, but it I mean it looks very tight. If we were going to do some kind of Uturn there, I'd say what typical lanes what 12 feet wide something like that. So, give or take add four or five feet to it. You got to have a car turning radius of under what outside wheel in. Well, this is getting a bit technical, but um if that So, if I'm hearing you correctly, that would be the primary means of entering or

I actually think the one to the south is more primary. So through the lot north and then left into the the only reason I say that is this location and I'm not a you know economic adviser or anything but it serves south Brentwood for the most part because we have the northwestern location and then we have the the east location that commissioner uh Roberts described right so if this is serving the south southern population most people at least that I can see is they're going to drive up Fair View and then probably turn right into that. So presumably on the second right and if they come from east or southeast they're going to take Balffor in turn right on Balffor and come up and over to uh in that way. So presumably that either one of those right turn exits uh entries if if I'm trying to take the path of least resistance what is former traffic director Kursan would say is like traffic flows like water. Is that right? Uh he would always say that and so we want to take the path of least resistance as far as I can tell. So, I don't I don't know if there's been any studies on how quickly you could do a U-turn there, but I I would certainly be curious.

When we were reviewing this and especially when we were on tour early in the planning stages, the thought was it would be more more commonly you the southern ingress egress point to the parking lot would be more commonly used. And then that northern point is either traffic, you know, just not related to us possibly egressing, but also for a for a car that has just for whatever reason not turned in. And then the that's just the secondary opportunity, right? Um that was the conversation we all had when we were out touring quite a bit ago.

I see. Okay. Um that puts it a bit more perspective. I just I just some circulation questions because I

it's it's not ideal if most, you know, uh customers would have to drive through the whole the whole lot just to get to um uh this restaurant. But um yeah, that was the main thing. And then I don't know if there were the second follow-up feedback on that is I don't know if you would have some type of sign that indicates the most optimal right turn into that. So if both right turns are available, I don't know if a motorist would necessarily imply unless they visited their restaurant on several occasions, what would be the most ideal way that the least painful way to enter that shopping center. So

um I've seen some other establishments do that where it says to enter drive-thru, enter here versus, you know, the next location. I I don't know if that was something that was part of this application as well. I don't want to speak for Tony. I we have uh signage for the entrance to the Chipotle lane itself but not separate signage for Chipotle turn here as part of I Tony I don't want to speak for you excuse me uh yeah basically signage is out of the scope of this application so sign permits will follow the building yes thank you yes yeah that's all my questions thank you

well Um, following up on that, um, I have a little bit of perspective on that for Vice Chair Brand and for everybody. I I happen to live in that neighborhood and, um, I I live in Deer Ridge and just coming over here tonight, I decided to take a swing by the the the plot there, just sort of a quick east site visit. And what I can tell you is um the direction I'm coming from. I turned left onto Fair View and I have a choice of those two rights, but I never knew that second right that's past the plot even existed because um every time I go to visit that shopping center, I take the first one. And the reason why is because there's a um a turn lane in front of it. So like you you come around the corner, you get into that turn lane, and you take that first right. And um then you know it was like when I looked at the plan I go, "Oh, huh, there's a road back there." So I I and then I turned left past the plot and then I turned left and I came back out. So I I think most people will be coming in between the two right-hand turns off of Fairview. I think they're going to be taking the uh the the more southern one because there's a turn lane and it just guides them in there. And um I I did think that that might make them kind of have to do kind of a loop-de-loop in front of people that are trying to get out. Um I I don't see it as a huge problem because of the the kind of lower volume and there's there's nothing else back there right now. So um I I think it'll be all right. And I think over time, if you have repeat business, the customers will go out that way and then they'll realize, hey, I could have come in this way and if it's more convenient for them, they'll do it. But yeah, just at the beginning, I think um like me and anybody else that lives over there, they'll take the southern one. Does that does that answer your question pretty well?

Yeah. Yeah. No, it's clear. Thank you. All right. And um I have no other questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commission. At this time we have no speakers here in the chamber that would like to speak and we have no hands raised in Zoom. Thank you April. [Music] Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Motion to close the public hearing. Second. All in favor? I I

Motion carries. So, um I'll I'll go ahead and uh go in order uh because uh for any discussion, let's let's start with um Commissioner Johnson, you want to go first? I don't have any more questions at this time for discussion.

I don't uh I don't uh for right now from based on what I can see, my only concern was the distance from the you know the homes. I also had some concern about lighting um and the time that they were opening but uh having heard the applicant say they're not opening at 7:00 in the morning and it's only 50t away from the house over there. Uh I didn't want to stick somebody with a whole bunch of uh uh noisy stuff at 7 in the morning. Um, so I I feel comfortable with with what's going on at that drive-thru with the digital uh drive-thru. Uh, the lighting was there before, so we're probably not going to have any light bleed into the house, too. So, if it wasn't if it wasn't bleeding before, it's not going to bleed now. Um, maybe that wasn't the right terminology to use uh in terms of But you guys knew what I meant. Okay. Uh um I haven't I don't I don't have any problems right now. Thank you.

Um Commissioner Jones.

Yeah, thank you. Um yeah, I think the project's pretty well within the scope of, you know, the commercial center and just the buildout. Um you know, design I think is consistent with just the surrounding architecture. Um, thank you for clarification on just the digital component. Uh, I think that definitely provides a lower impact approach. Um, particularly for the homes in the area. So, um, I think we're good there. Um, other than that, you know, I is in terms of just the unknown future tenant. Um, and maybe we can get some clarification on this, but what what is what typically would be zoned for that building just so I'm clear.

We just uh bring up the zoning real quick. It's in PD5 if I remember correctly. It's similar to general commercial, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, uh, uh, retail, bakeries, pastry shops, coffee shops, bookstores, candy stores, florists, um, drugstores, um, let's see, restaurants, uh, barber, beauty shops, uh, professional offices and, uh, financial institutions including banks and, uh, general retail. So, uh, typical stuff that you would find in a commercial center like this. Excellent. Okay. Thank you. And bringing that up again, just thinking about traffic. So, um, I I'm I'm good. Thank you. And Shermis Roberts.

Oh, yeah. I I don't have any uh questions. Um I I don't have any concerns either. Um I think that it is well constructed. Um they've got a pretty good reputation on um uh operating in uh the suburbs. Um and so it's in addition to that corridor um across the street there from Safeway and CVS. I'm sure that they have done their uh studies and I'm pretty sure that um they'll be a gain um and a nice addition um to that community. I don't have any questions. Thank you. Yeah, Vice Chair Brand.

Yeah, I mean, I have really had only expressed my concerns regarding circulation. It sounds like for the most part, they should handle it. I mean, I I'm not wild about the U-turn on the second Fair View entrance because it's pretty tight. I just put it in GIS and it was about 21 ft in terms of that, but evidently a, you know, current generation Suburban can do that. Uh, so I'll take it. um common vehicle in Brentwood in case every anyone's curious. Um so yeah, I think that'll work well. Um the I'm really happy to see the substantial amount of um uh vegetation and landscaping. It's a really nice addition to that corner. Unfortunately, many of these lots have been vacant for a very long period of time, uh all surrounding that Dollar Tree. And so it'll be nice to drive past there and see some kind of you know uh flora that's unique to the area. Um I you know my primary experience with these um what progressive drive-thru I don't know where you don't actually order at the drive-thru have been very positive. Um they run very efficiently especially the one on San Creek and Brentwood Boulevard. Um and so I'm I'm not terribly concerned about the throughput. I think I think their assessment of the four to five cars at max is probably even generous based off of what I've seen at least anecdotally. Um you know other than that yeah the as far as design goes I like the integration of the Chipotle corporate colors with the um uh you know the similarities to this complex as a whole. I know this many of these buildings have been around a long time. So, it's just a nice uh it should make a nice addition. And um yeah, the I I know we had received some

comments regarding the uh additional noise and stuff that may impact the area. I know this has sort of been said. I just you know, the window does face the street. Uh there is no amplification from some type of speaker. So, uh, presumably a car driving by will probably be, you know, significantly louder than a, you know, person speaking at the at the window going to pick up. So, I I don't suppose that that should have a marketable impact on the neighborhood, uh, from my assessment. But other than that, um, yeah, I think it looks like a great project. So, that's all. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Brand. Um, first of all, I just want to say I I really love the concept of the digital drive-thru. Um, I think uh, Chair Maris Roberts kind of came up, we're going to have to have a a new word for a non-digital drive-thru. Maybe we'll just call it non-digital. I It's a It's a back formation. Like back when when they started selling wireless phones back in the 80s, all of a sudden then you had a corded phone, which used to just be a phone. So, um, this, uh, gets rid of the things about drive-throughs that I hate the most, which is the squawk box. Um, the giant lighted menus aren't going to be there. Um, and, uh, because that you're, uh, having the customer put in a time for pickup, um, you're not going to have the, uh, the traffic issues. And, um, I tend to believe you on the studies that you've done, and it just makes sense. So, we'll see. I live near there, so I'll see personally, but um I I think this is just an excellent idea. Um and uh I I'll tell you when I when I drove by there, the one thing I did notice is that uh right next to that pad just across the North Street is is a house. And it's just like right there. And something that I care a lot about and you'll you'll hear me speak about in these meetings is how a business will affect um the neighbors. And I did notice that house um does have a sound wall which comes almost up to the top of the first floor windows. These just there's just two first floor windows there and there's no second story windows. So I'm I'm hoping that it'll be nice and quiet. Um, I didn't notice anything about um time of day for uh deliveries and for, you know, carrying trash out and dumping it into the the

trash cans. Didn't really ask, but um uh my my faith is that we'll be good neighbors here and um we won't be getting complaints. Um, so with that said, um,

would somebody like to make a motion? Yeah, I make a motion to adopt resolution number 25-013 approving conditional use permit number 24-009 subject to certain findings and conditions. Second. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Eyes have it. Oh. Oh, I got to read the design review. Forgive me. Then I can do that. Chair. Yeah. Uh, I also make a motion to adopt resolution number 25-014 approving design review number 25-014 subject to certain findings and conditions. I second.

All in favor? I I have it. Now, congratulations. Thank you. All righty. Um, moving on to item E2, text amendments to the Brentwood Municipal Code related to the adoption of objective design standards for residential and mixeduse development needed to comply with state law as required by the city's adopted housing element implementation policies. We have Jennifer.

Thank you, chair and members of the commission. Uh tonight in collaboration with JZMK partners, we're here to present the text amendment to the municipal code related to the adoption of our objective design standards for residential and mix mixed use development which we call our ODS. Drafting the ODS has been a long and thorough process which started by taking in the initial 2006 residential design guidelines and carrying over applicable guidelines to be transferred into these new guidelines and standards. With the help of JZMK staff believes that we've come up with a comprehensive document that will continue to reflect the values and character of the community in a meaningful and th and thoughtful way. Tonight's presentation will be given to you by Tim Hagen from JZMK who is joining us tonight via Zoom. He will go through his presentation and summary of the document and at the conclusion will be available for questions and to go through any chapters or areas that the commission would like to discuss further. As I'm sure you've all seen, this is a lengthy and often wordy document. Staff and our consultant team are here to assist you in any way possible tonight so we can make sure that your comments and concerns may be clearly conveyed to council. And with that, I will hand the presentation over to Tim.

All right, good evening. Can everyone hear me? Okay, we can. Thank you. Okay, great. Let me share my screen. And can everybody see my screen? It should read City of Brentwood objective design standards. Yes, thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. Again, my name is Tim Hagen. Uh, no relation to Jennifer. Uh, I'm a senior planner and an associate at JZMK Partners. I'd like to wish you good evening and thank you for the opportunity to present tonight. I'm here to share an overview of Brentwood's objective design standards, what they are, why they matter, and how they will help guide future development in a clear, consistent way. Tonight, I'll walk you through the draft standards and highlight key elements that are essential to give you a solid understanding of the draft standards and outline the next steps towards adoption. So tonight's presentation is meant to provide a general overview of the current draft of Brentwood's objective design standards. I'll walk you through their purpose and goals, give you a snapshot of their content, and where we are in the process so you know what to expect as we move forward towards adoption. Objective design standards are Brentwood's response to recent state housing legislation, which requires that qualifying housing projects be reviewed and approved through objective criteria. These standards will help streamline the review process, reduce uncertainty for applicants, and support the city's efforts to deliver new housing in a timely and predictable manner. Now before we get into the details of the standards, it's helpful to understand what we mean by objective. The shift from subjective to objective design standards is at the heart of recent state legislation and it changes how cities review projects. Objective standards are clear, measurable rules that can be applied without personal interpretation like specific height limit or required setback. Subjective standards rely on

personal judgment using terms like visually pleasing or compatible, which can vary from reviewer to reviewer. California law now requires objective standards in many housing approvals to ensure fairness, transparency, and predictability for all applicants. The standards are designed to accomplish several key goals. first to provide clear citywide regulations that everyone can understand, the public, staff, and the development community. They aim to preserve Brentwood's character, promote highquality human scale design, and create a cohesive pedestrianfriendly environment. And when taken together, these goals will help ensure new projects complement the community's existing fabric while raising the bar for design excellence. How did we get here? To provide some context, here's how we arrived at the draft before you tonight. In May of 2023, the city council approved a professional services agreement to prepare and complete both the focus zoning code zoning ordinance update and the objective design standards. In December of 2023, the city council held a study session with our consultant team where we introduced the ODS and received direction on their content, organization, and overall look and feel of the document. Throughout 2024 and into 2025, the consultant team of Denovo and JCMK worked closely with city staff to craft the draft document, incorporating results from public outreach efforts. In April of 2025, a public review draft was prepared and shared with the community via the city's website and social media channels, but to date,

little to no public comment has been received. And finally, in May of 2025, the draft was presented to the Land Use and Development Committee on May 19th, bringing us to tonight's presentation. Now before we get into the actual document context, let me give you just a brief introduction to why this consultant team is here and what we bring to the table. JZMK Partners has prepared multiple objective design standards documents across California, several of which have already been successfully adopted. Our team understands how to translate urban design principles and architectural standards into clear objective criteria that can be consistently applied by staff and easily followed by developers. We work collaboratively with cities to ensure the final document aligns with the community's goals and provides a practical enforcable tool for reviewing future projects. Our combined experience and expertise allow us to deliver a product that will serve Brentwood for years to come. Now, let's get to the document. Its layout and contents. The standards are organized into six chapters: introduction, site planning, site design, building design, architectural styles, and landscape. This organization allows us to look at projects from the big picture down to finer details, ensuring consistent approach to planning, design, and construction across the city. Let's begin with the introduction chapter which sets the stage for the entire document. It explains the purpose of the objective design standards, outlines how the document is organized, and clarifies which project types must comply. It also describes how the standards relate to the city's general

plan and zoning code, ensuring consistency between the two documents. Finally, it gives us a user guide so that residents, staff, and applicants know how to navigate and apply the standards to their projects. In chapter 2, we talk about site planning, the chapter that sets the framework for how the land is organized. This section focuses on block sizes, pedestrian connectivity, and midblock connections to encourage walkable, connected neighborhoods. The key purpose of these midblock connections is to break down large building masses, creating more human scale development that feels consistent with Brentwood's existing lowdensity character. It also establishes open space requirements, both private and public, so that every project contributes to the city's networks of parks and gathering spaces. Together, these standards ensure that new development is appropriately scaled, well-connected, and designed to enhance the existing fabric of the community. From there, we move in a little closer to look at site design, which addresses how individual sites function. This chapter covers shared and private open space, vehicular access, parking layouts, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The intent here is to create sites that are safe, comfortable, and inviting for people with clear pathways, ADA accessibility, and thoughtful sight lighting that balances safety with neighborhood compatibility. Chapter four is about building design. Once the site is planned, the next chapter focuses on the buildings themselves. Building design sets the standards for massing, modulation, roof forms, and articulation so that buildings feel appropriately scaled and

architecturally engaging. It includes requirements for window placement, street facing transparency, and building entries to encourage pedestrian engagement. It also covers practical details like screening utilities, noise attenuation, and managing service areas, helping to create buildings that are well composed. architecturally attractive and functionally efficient. Chapter five focuses on architectural styles which are a key part of Brentwood's identity. This chapter defines the styles that are appropriate for new development and sets clear criteria for each. The goal is to ensure that materials, roof forms, and detailing are authentic and that new projects create a cohesive, well-designed look that enhances Brentwood's character. To prepare this section, we conducted an architectural study of Brentwood's existing residential neighborhoods. And then based on that study, we identified the styles that are most appropriate for residential development moving forward. After analyzing Brentwood's existing architectural styles, we created a new map that best reflects the architectural vision for the city of Brentwood. The map divides the city into three architectural style zones shown in blue, green, and red, each with a set of allowed styles. In the northwest northeast corner, PA1 shown in blue allows only contemporary style, playing off the already defined modern look of that area. The downtown core shown at the center in green allows Spanish craftsman, Queen Anne, colonial, and Italian 8 styles. This mix reflects the area's historic and eclectic character and will help establish an identifiable vernacular that feels distinct from the rest of the city.

The remaining areas of the city shown in red allow Spanish, Mediterranean, craftsman, contemporary, ranch, and colonial styles, offering a balance of consistency and design choices across Brentwood. This slide displays an example of each style identified throughout the study. It provides a quick look at the full range of styles includes in the standards before we move into a more detailed example on the following slides. And now within the document, each style is laid out with the same structure organized into five subcategories. They are architectural features, roofs, walls and windows, materials and colors, and decorative accents and details. Now, these next few slides uh use the Spanish style as an example to show you how each style is presented in the document. You can see how we start with a written style description followed by detailed requirements for each of the five subcategories. And I'll show you that here in a minute. This approach ensures clarity and consistency for designers and builders, helping them understand what is required to achieve authentic high-quality architecture. The first spread shown here focuses on uh or I'm sorry it begins with architectural features as shown in the bottom left illustrated with an example photo and supported by additional images shown on the right how that style can be expressed across different densities allowed by the zoning code. The next spread focuses on roofs, walls and windows. Each category includes required elements that must be incorporated in order to achieve that style along with optional elements that provide additional ways to reinforce its character. Some have these optional elements but not all.

The final two sections cover materials and colors which establish the overall look of the style and decorative accents and details which add definition and authenticity. For the remaining styles, Mediterranean, ranch, craftsman, queen Anne, Italian 8, colonial, and contemporary, the full document contains the same detailed standards as shown in this Spanish style example. Uh, I would encourage you to review the actual draft document uh if you're want to see the rest of those architectural styles. The final chapter of the document highlights the importance of landscape as a core part of good design. Its standards guide the selection of plant materials, the design of outdoor spaces, and the treatment of edges and buffers so that new development feels connected to its natural setting. The chapter also supports sustainability goals by encouraging shade, storm water management, and climate appropriate solutions that enhance the comfort and character of Brentwood's neighborhoods. Now that we've covered the content of the document, let's take a look at next steps in the process. First, following this evening's discussion, we'll respond to planning commission comments and make any re recommended revisions. And then the next step is to re receive your recommendation for approval so that the draft standards can be forwarded to city council for adoption. Your feedback tonight will help ensure the standards reflect the community's goals before they're finalized. And that concludes our basic overview of the objective design standards. We appreciate your time and thoughtful consideration this evening and we look forward to hearing your comments in incorporating as we move the document

towards adoption. Thank you. Thank you. Um before we move to clarifying questions, I just want to make a note for the commission that the um the comments and things we'll be doing in discussion. The section we're doing here is just clarifying questions. So with that, does anybody have any clarifying questions and I'll just call people out. Uh Commissioner Johnson, not at this time. Uh Commissioner Jones, no questions. Thank you. and chair Meredith Roberts. Uh, none at this time. You you say that you're going to move from there to discussion.

We we will in in the normal course of business. And um, vice chair, my only question is related to um I know you had a great slide on um objectivity versus subjectivity. The um are this document is classifying architectural style as a objective requirement. Is that right? Correct. The the standards that we've defined for each architectural style should ensure that each one of those styles is uh appropriately met. So there's there's objective standards to define each architectural style uniquely from one another. Correct. Okay. Just just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

Um yeah, I have a clarifying question. um as as you were given the assignment to do this um ODS and it's very necessary that we do this by the way I think everybody here understands the importance of this um I guess the question I have is as you as you were going through the existing um design standards residential design standards um were you given uh direction to do as much as you could to preserve what those design standards contained, but just in a more objective way. Um, or how much of this, it seemed like some of it was trying to match by picking architectural styles, but some of it seemed to be conceptually just some new good ideas that were thrown in there. Um, and I was I was just wondering, I know that the people that live in Brentwood bought here. They looked at the community, they liked it. Um, I'm somebody who looked at this community and liked it and bought it and appreciated everything that that was done. Um, and I'm just wondering, um, how much of your assignment was to preserve what Brentwood is doing, but just do it in a way that's more compliant with the state versus how much of it was kind of reimagining what Brentwood could or should look like. Is that best answered by myself or possibly Jennifer?

Either one. I can go ahead if you'd like.

Um, yeah. So, our original intent was to try to preserve their residential design guidelines as much as possible. Um, we wanted to ensure that new residential communities and neighborhoods were compatible and consistent um to older neighborhoods. And we wanted to make sure that as you're driving down the road, you're not able to tell the difference between a residential neighborhood that is done now versus residential neighborhood that was done 10 years ago. Um, so yes, we we did definitely take into consideration the residential design guidelines. We moved over for the majority of it. It was more the site planning and site design. Um some of the single family um or most of the single family aspects we took over in terms of um uh single family at the corners and or single story at the corners making sure that there was a variety of twotory and and one-story homes and single family neighborhoods. A lot of that was carried directly over. That was objective. Um, and we did want to make sure that this was not a re-imagining and reinvisioning the future of Brentwood. That we did want to make sure that this included the previous community goals and the previous community vision and make that moving forward um, consistent.

All right. Thank you. But that was my question. Thank you. At this time, the public is permitted to address the planning commission. Remarks are limited to five minutes per person except for the applicant. I don't think we have an applicant tonight. The city, which will be the city, of course. Um, who will have 10 minutes? And does the applicant wish to address the commission this time? No. Okay. Um we'll go on to uh public speakers uh who will have five minutes. April.

Yes. Thank you chair. There is no one here in person. So we have no one here to speak in person. We'll go ahead and go to Zoom if anyone would like to speak. It looks like most of these are the consultants people. We have no speakers in Zoom. All right. Thank you, April. And um it's a little disappointing because this is something that's going to have a tremendous impact on the on the shape of the city going forward. Um nonetheless and uh we'll just need a motion to close the public hearing. Sure. Uh do I have a motion to close public hearing?

A motion to close public hearing. Second. All in favor? I I motion carries.

Uh time for discussion. Um should we just continue uh going person to person through the chair real quick? Um sorry. Uh the I know it got brought up at Lud and I know you're on Lud, so I was hoping you could give us maybe a little bit of context as far as that. I don't recall watching that meeting. Maybe you can kind of help us understand what you all y'all discussed so that we uh kind of have that context at least.

Well, famously, it's a long time from May to September, but um what we discussed at LED the first time around and and that and vice chair brand is correct. I sit in an advisory role on on land use and development committee led. Um, we were given the current design review, the the current um, well, they're not current anymore. We're using the interim objective design standards now, but we were given the the current design standards at the time, the 2006 design standards, um, so that we could look at them and and start thinking about if there were changes that were needed and to discuss them. and staff was going to come back to us with um the document that you see in front of you tonight, the uh the new proposed objective design standards. Um through a a series of unfortunate events, uh LED was cancelled uh three times in a row. Uh you might remember me when I was giving my staff reports, I I was constantly urging the public to tune in to the LED meeting to see this because it's important. and then the lead meeting would get cancelled. So eventually the decision was meeting made to bypass the lead altogether and come straight to the next step which is the planning commission. So we're evaluating it with no input from lead at all. So u which is which is fine. Um it so we're just we're just going at it um from scratch as it were. Thank you.

And um so Commissioner Johnson, do you want to start with the with the discussion?

You know, I looked through this. Um I just have this is probably a a a Miss Hagen type question, but in the future, I know we did this part. I apologize, but just came to me. in the future as somebody was going to build a housing development. Um is it my is my understanding that the staff would review this document and you would say okay the Italianate everything in this housing development meets the ODS standards um so that ne not necessarily the planning commission would be but that's how it would work.

Yeah. So in the future um as part of this we will put together a checklist that will be part of our design review application. Um and applicants will be required to go through the checklist. The checklist is is going to be an abbreviated version of this basically just having the titles of each of these sections. Um and it would most likely have the title and the applicant would be required to say have you met this? Do you certify that you've met this? they're going to say yes and you know and how they have met it. Um then staff we would go through and obviously double check their work. In addition um single family and residential developments in the future will also be going to an outside peer review to also doublech checkck staff's work as well through this checklist. And so we would be going through um the checklist. We would be going through this and confirming that they've met all of these. Um there is an option in here for an exception to an objective design standards. Um so what that does is in certain types of approvals that would take them out of um a ministerial approval and make it a discretionary approval. Um so the the planning commission or the city council would have a lot more leverage to approve or deny an exception um if they were to do that if they did not want to meet one of these for whatever reason. Um so that is basically kind of the the workflow of how uh an application comes through. They would have the checklist. They would confirm whether they have met it. We would reaffirm it and it would also go through an outside peer review.

Sorry I didn't ask earlier

u be before we go on um on on that. So if if the ministerial approval is granted would the planning commission or city council see it at all? There are in most cases, yes, it depends on the type of state law. If if they were trying to to use a state law um in terms of, for example, an AB 2011, which was what we saw, that would bypass the planning commission. It would be something though that would go to the city council just to reaffirm. Um there's some similar to that. um that have newly just come out that have not been applied for or not been used in the city that potentially would not go to planning commission or city council but in the majority of the cases they would

understood. Thank you. Um and continuing on Commissioner Johnson anymore. Thank you. Um Commissioner Jones.

Yeah, thank you. Um, Jennifer, Tim, I mean, nice nice presentation and and and thank you for for for putting this in front of us. Um, a little frustrating for me. You know, I I don't like these uh state top down laws that have been put in place that are bluntly stripping local communities like Brentwood with the ability to, you know, plan the way they want to plan. Um, but I do recognize that, you know, it's a state law and and and that's just what it is. But um one thing I would just put going back into the the package um particularly looking at the the uh contemporary design um I I I'm not a I'm just personally not a fan of that design. I I I I'm curious where that actually exists within Brentwood now. At least the pictures that I'm looking at. and I could be missing something, but I I don't know if I've really seen anything like that uh in Brentwood and and I don't know if that would necessarily fit. Um so I I I think it's worth a discussion of just, you know, what what that would look like. Um, outside of that, you know, I I I recognize again, you know, that that this is just uh part of the the top down approach here that, you know, the state's putting on us, which is um unfortunate. Uh, but, you know, it is what it is. So, you know, I I'm not a fan of this direction, but I I I know we're legally obligated in a lot of ways. So, hopefully we can discuss a little more on just some of the specifics of of these designs. uh but particularly for the contemporary um I'm not a fan and I I don't know if that's something you know we would want as a part of a design standard process. So I I'll I'll leave it that

chair Roberts.

Okay. Thanks. So yeah uh the one thing that is consistent uh from the presentation and thank you for this very elaborate presentation to some of the questions I'm hearing you guys have been studying this or working on this for two years a little more than two years and looking at this document and expecting the planning commission to go through this document in this session and we are trying to do this with the greatest care I think is a little unrealistic. Um I would like personally to have more time. It's not to say that we're not going to address our responsibilities, but to have us make decisions having received this on Friday, I think the only person that has got a leg up on this big document is um Chairperson Rod. Um, I I just would like to do justice by the residents here in Brentwood uh to have time to look this document over and have specific questions. Um, there's absolutely no way that I can participate uh in in that process uh because I'm not a surveyor. Um the the technical part of this document in every chapter requires more than three days to review. What I had hoped we could do, and we haven't done it in some time, is have a working

um session with the author of this document and the city to bring our concerns and or questions in so that we could really do um bigger justice to this uh this document. But to begin the conversation, I'm all for. But to actually move on this document, I I just think that we would be doing a disservice to the city of Brentwood. Um, not having all the questions answered at at least to review it and have questions to ask that make sense. So that that's my comment on this document.

Thank you. Um, Vice Chair Brand, uh, so to begin with, uh, we've had, uh, a number of people serve on this commission and I I know, um, some of our former member had former members have spoken very outspoken regarding the idea of the defensible space as a part of, um, fire protection. I don't I don't recall seeing anything in here that used an objective to standard to define that. And I think if I remember correctly, it was like a five foot space. It maybe Jennifer can share that.

Yeah. So, what we did add in here, um it looks like it's on page 87, uh 6.3.2, which is our fuel modification, uh under our fire hazard section. Um, we do have an ember resistant zone which is required within 5t of all structures located in a very high fire severity zone. Um, an ember resistant zone is a state defined definition. So, it's not in here, but it is state defined. Um, and so as well as our very high fire severity zones. Um, and it states that it is in the most recent state fire high hazard severity zone local maps and state responsibility areas. So, as the maps continue to change, in our most recent uh local map, we actually did get a little bit more of the uh very high severity zones within the city. Um so that zone is definitely expanding further into the city. Um and so this would cover that zone as if or when it continues to to move and relocate. Um but as it's currently written, it would only be required within the very high fire severity zone.

So I if I understand um As buildout is completed, the dynamic nature of those zone assignments would be reflected in whatever is being built, you know, whenever those intersections take place. So that could just change it. I guess it would be dependent on the time in which the project is approved and then correct. So, but it's not uniform across the whole city. It's only based off of the fire district's assessment of our city. Correct. And those are the same maps that the the insuranceances based their assessments off of as well. Okay, great. That's that's Yeah, it's good to know.

Um, sorry. The I first want to say like how comprehensive this document is is is really something. I I know that all y'all put a ton of work into it. So I just I have to pause for a moment and say like how detailed and how uh how much content there is. I mean it's only what it's 10 pages longer than the last one I think but I think you know this is one of our few uh documents that does commissioner Jones had commented the regarding the sort of ongoing you know discussion that we have at the state level versus municipal level. the um I'd like to think of a document like this as sort of outlining our strategy, if you will. If we can only have nine players, we're going to give our best batters at first and fourth, right? So, I I would hope that we'd be able to use this document in a way that would give us a um an edge, if you will. So um when I look at this I I notice that the um many of the roof structures that we have uh for several let's see one two three uh four um five technically if you can include contemporary um they don't require a tile roof and I know that's been something that we've been very adamant about not just this commission but commissions before that as well as council u I don't is this something some flexibility that needs to be baked in here or is that just maybe maybe you can answer that would be wonderful.

Yeah. So going through the original thought process of of the consultant team um as well as city staff was to look at each of the individual architectural styles themselves and look at what um type of roofing material is most appropriate. you know, there are certain types of of roofing materials um like I believe ranch that is not all cases is necessarily appropriate to have a tile roof on a ranch style home. Um and so on ranch style homes you might have other types of of roofing materials. Um and so in some of the styles we did allow an eitheror a tile or a composition. Um, but there are certain ones than I believe like the Spanish that is only tile required. Um, these are definitely areas that at the planning commission's recommendation or discretion. Um, we can make changes to if that is the direction you would like to go. Um, but that is just kind of the base of where staff and the consultant team started in making our initial um, draft of this document came from.

Great. Yeah. And I at least from where I'm sitting right now I would I would definitely advocate for the idea of primary use of tile roofs because I mean that seems to you know we talk about the character of Brentwood low density character high quality fabric of the community that's what we predominantly see within our within Brentwood and so um just something I'd like to throw out there. Um let me move down. So I know I brought up the comment about the architectural style. Um, I tend to agree pretty strongly with uh Commissioner Jones on this is that I don't see the contemporary architectural style as being compatible with Brentwood whatsoever. I I don't see, you know, the examples that were listed in the staff report, I guess, in the um in the draft here. I think one is um the hall at Trilogy. One of them is the I think it's LMC, the Brentwood campus, and I think the other one is like the Liberty Library or something. I I couldn't tell exactly, but um none of those are residential, and uh they're all some type of commercial space. And when you drive around and some of Trilogy has that and I think some of our newer apartment complexes have that, but I I what my recommendation to this commission would be is that we would depart from making that an acceptable architectural style only because it's very in infrequently seen if at all. I mean, the only times I've seen something like this is like a custom home. And it's I don't see, you know, I don't see this as being consistent. And I said this, the character of Brentwood, the lowdensity character, high quality fabric fabric of the community. You know, if it's a if it's a, you know, posh penthouse in Santa Monica, it's perfectly appropriate to have contemporary. But you know, if you look at the buildout, the remaining buildout of Brentwood, a lot of it is on

the outskirts or a lot of it is in sort of low density land that it it, you know, contemporary would look substantially out of place in my perception. And so I, you know, no differently than what we do with respect to um uh Oh, Jennifer, you might have to help me with this. a um a density transition or um I think you know what I mean uh uh lot size uh density transition um where we have to scale down. It's the same basic idea where if you have a huge ranch lot next to small single family like we would see like on Bront Boulevard um we want to ease that transition. I don't think contemporary styles necessarily do that very well. Um so that's one of my recommendations as we discuss this further. Um the only other thing I'll say about that is because we have this sort of mixeduse um consideration and being really conscious of the fact that I know that PA1 was recently discussed through council. um we have a lot of motivation to ensure that we have a flatter trajectory for you know projects to sort of enter that space and begin uh well not begin that's the wrong word uh to continue cultivating that economic space. I would say that it would be wonderful if we had the opportunity to if we were going to apply that architectural standard um is that we might focus that on PA1 in particular if we have to use that one otherwise the map that represent that shows that all of Brentwood having that applicable I don't think that's appropriate personally but PA1 I would entertain the possibility that it's appropriate because of its you know that we're looking at potentially having residents above you know having that first floor being businesses and then residents above it, the transit center, the other

mixeduse types of things in which um the lines between residential and commercial are so blurred. Um that's where we see that being most appropriate. That's where we're seeing I know um it seeing that way that certain cities in the South Bay in particular have developed some of their communities. The overarching uh architectural style I'm seeing is the is that contemporary one and I' I'd like for us to avoid that if at all possible. So, um, other than that, uh, I think my main question with that would be, I know that there are certain constraints. We can't just say, "Oh, we want to have craftsmen only in the whole city." I'm sure the state would frown, uh, frown upon us for doing that, but because we have eight architectural standards. I'd imagine that we'd have significant flexibility to discard at least one, but I I might have to rely on Miss Brace over here to give us some guidance. Yeah, I would say um any anything that is reasonable and wouldn't effectively preclude, you know, for example, affordable housing that would um you know, do away with our requirements under state law to provide for affordable housing, for example.

Yeah. And I I imagine a affordable housing complex could be made in a Spanish style or Craftsman or any of those. um is that I I mean maybe Jennifer this good question for you.

Yeah, I I believe and it it is one of the discussions we've had um at the very beginning. It was actually a very large discussion at the city council level when we were just talking very high level and what um u area what um architectural styles to include. This is one of the exact conversations we had whether contemporary was appropriate. Um and I think at the time it it's was a very similar discussion. It was, you know, PA1, I think, was originally designed to be more of a contemporary plan and the existing goals um and policies within that plan talk about contemporary architecture. Um throughout the remaining portions of the city, as you indicated, I think we're seeing a lot more multifamily and highdensity contemporary projects. Um but in terms of current development within the city, uh there's very very very few single family contemporary projects that we've had. Um and they are more recent. I think Kindred and Balffor example is is one of them that is newer. Um that is a single family contemporary project or what we would consider contemporary in terms of multif family. just next to it, Merryill Gardens, um which is a higher density type uh senior living facility is a contemporary project. Um so we we do have both, but they are very very limited currently in the city. Um and they are both newer projects. Um but that is a discussion and so you know at your discretion um that is always a recommendation we can make is to take it out of the single family section or take it out altogether of of the red citywide section. Yeah. Okay. Wonderful. Um, that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, okay. Jennifer, going back to tile roof for a minute. Um, are you thinking that a tile roof is just the clay curved tiles? No, they they have nowadays they actually have multiple different types of tiles. So, it's not just barrel clay tile roofs. Um they they have multiple types of tile now.

Certainly. I have ceramic tile on my what I consider to be a craftsman style house and they don't look out of place at all. So, um that's that's something that I'm a point I just kind of want to make that I don't think that asphalt files should be in there, but it's just my opinion. Um, contemporary. Uh, I also don't like that style very much. Um, it's interesting you brought up Merrill Gardens because contemporary and it even admits it or states it in the new standards that are proposed. Contemporary is not really a style. It's a collection of styles. And uh so there's some things that I see that are contemporary that I think might fit in Brentwood and there are some things that are contemporary that I think definitely would not fit in Brentwood. So if you want to bring us a contemporary style, um it would need to be more sharply defined um to be something that would be attractive and appealing to to the residents of this community. Um so it it would need to to be more naturally styled. Um, for instance, in my neighborhood, the paint colors all have to be kind of um matching of the natural style of colors that are, you know, you can't just go paint your house purple. Uh, it has to be you like certain beiges or um sage greens, things like that, browns. Um, my next question is, are styles really objective? I mean, I can think of an example here

recently um where I pointed out that something was not of the style that was listed, and it's one of the styles that's on this list, by the way, and somebody said, "Oh, it's um well, I don't want to go back over it, but but they said it was Main Street America, whatever that means." And that's not a style. Um and so, how objective are these styles? and how how well are we able to enforce them under the state definition whatever that is of what is objective and what is not.

So as part of of the design guidelines and each of these chapters we have the style description and you are absolutely right. Um a lot of times it comes down to the person who writes the description. They can write it different ways. How we would enforce it objectively is through the different required elements here. You can't call it a craftsman without having the required elements that are listed here. Um that's why we have required roof elements. We have required window elements. So within that style there is the overarching description that itself might not always be objective but once you put together all five of the required elements all of those together more cohesively create that architectural style if that makes sense.

Sure. And I think it it speaks volumes that as I go through this document, there are things that defy objectivity. I'll give you an example. In Queen Anne, you have to have a decorative railing and it's described as a decorative railing, but you can't it doesn't really say it has to be decorative in the Queen Anne style. It doesn't say it has to be reminiscent of, you know, 18th century England. It just says decorative. And um quite famously, the city council was faced with a controversy once where um the architect came in and wanted to change the style of a railing that they had depicted in a picture and there were people in the community didn't like the new style. Um and there's no objectivity in that at all. So, how it it really at the end of the day, decisions are still going to have to be made and and um I don't know how you get around it, but as much as possible and and I actually am somebody who likes objectivity and likes enforcability. Um I desperately needed that and didn't have it recently. Um, can somebody come in and say, "Oh, my style is kind of adjacent to that style." How how can we prevent that from happening again? Tim, on the architectural style, would you have a creating these how that's been done in the past? Well, I um I agree that the with the architectural styles, you know, objectivity and subjectivity, there there's a fine line between them. I

think uh as Jennifer had mentioned before, that uh we've written and provided image samples to the point where we feel comfortable enough that the if if these standards throughout these subcategories are met that we're going to be able to achieve that style. Um but as you had mentioned, you know, it it it does boil down to somebody's somewhat opinion of that. And so I think through the through the developer coming in and identifying and stating that they're going to achieve a specific architectural style and the city uh running their check through the checklist that is going to come from this document um that there's enough confidence with the standards that have been created and shown here that uh that the architectural style will be met.

I have very little faith in that. I I'm and I'm sorry. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but to say that um I mean you're just begging the question. You're you're not really providing an objective standard. There's no pictures of this railing would be an example of what is in the standard, but there's no picture of this railing would not fit in the standard. There's no picture of these are there's pictures of these are kinds of things that look like what we're going for, but there's no pictures of things that say, "Oh, this isn't what we're going for at all." And um I'm I understand I appreciate the effort that goes into it and it may be impossible. I don't know. But um I feel like uh to define a style is very nearly impossible and um but to the extent that it can be um I think there should be some language in there to to keep people from messing around with it too much that that something there should be something in there that you know like if you say it should be decorated Um, you should say it should be decorated uh consistent with the style and I and then how do you define that? I mean, if you ask me about art deco, I could probably give you a description if you gave me a little time. Or art nuvo, I know what that is. Uh, Queen Anne, I don't know as much, but I I think I could definitely look at, you know, I could see a a railing that was Craftsman and know it wasn't Queen Anne. And I'm not an architect. I'm just somebody who appreciates art. So I I think it needs to be very clear. And again, the hazard is one that's just really on my mind. So, um

having been been recently um taken advantage of and uh somebody saying that something was something it was clearly not and there was no way to go back and debate that and and so that's that's what I'm going on on there. Um I'm through the chair. Sure.

Would I be able to clarify something very quickly? I'm just thinking about your comment just then. the um what is the minimum uh amendment cadence to this document? So, if we get two years out and we're finding, let's call it some developers exploiting our railing statute or something like that, how quickly would we be able to remedy that?

There is is no limit on how many times this document can be amended. So, we definitely can come back. Um I can tell you that staff we will be looking at this very carefully and and if we come across problems um we ourselves this is the document that we are going to be working with every day and if we are going to have problems interpreting it and we're going to have um back and forth arguments with developers. This is something that you will see very quickly um because that that's not something that we want to deal with. Obviously, it's not something that you want to deal with, but there is not a limit or number of times um that it can come back. So, it can come back a month after it is approved. Um

understood. Understood. And um to I think to your point as well, um I like the idea of having um maybe I don't want to put words in your mouth, but um pictures associated with adjectives. Yeah. anytime we see that that there would be some kind of you know is it a the railing right is it a globe is it a gargoyle is it a star like I don't know you know it's but at least an example that's representative of that particular style but okay I'm done

I I appreciate that and um I I think that that's you know a valid point to say yeah this could be changed but the thing is we are a temporary body city council is a temporary body staff come and go um the will to do something like that may or may not exist at the time. I'd like to see something that was um as solid as it could be so that that future revisions were not necessary. Um moving on to the the next point. Um I I do think that we probably could use a little bit more time to look at this thing. Um I did keep finding myself coming up with questions even just during this discussion. I keep coming up with more questions, trying to jot them down, coming up with more questions, trying to um trying to keep track of what's in my head, and I'm very very old. So, um things come and go in my head, right? I I I think that I would like more time uh echoing uh what Chair Mitis Roberts had said, I think that that might be um appropriate as we go on discussing. And kind of the final thing that I wanted to touch on tonight in discussion um is the process of writing the resolution. Uh the last time we did an advisory resolution um the the resolution itself, the the uh recital and the actual document were the same as what was in the staff report. And then the recommendations were put up into the staff report that was passed on city council and then we had to kind of go back and redo it and make sure that the recommendations got into the actual resolution. And so what I have in mind

and um Britney you'll you want to listen to this too is that instead of doing that the recital could be amended as simply as um just saying the document with the recommended amendments finds the do you know the planning commission finds and then we start doing reital. We should just add something to the effect that the planning commission finds with these amendments that and then go into the the recital and then that would take care of not having to rewrite most of the the recital. We the recommendations that we're making are to make us believe those recital basically is so um and I I know that Jennifer takes careful notes and so it it should be possible to do it in that format. Um, and then that way there wouldn't be any confusion as far as what the intent was of this body as we make our advisory. And you can always include, you know, both amended and un amended. The city council can do as what they want with our advisory, but that would be my recommendation for how we would format it. Um, so, uh, with that, um, I'm I'm really looking at maybe, uh, extending this out and giving us all another look at it, but I I know that, um, uh, Chair Maris Roberts is kind of looking at that. I'm I'm just wondering how other people are feeling about that if anybody wants to give some discussion on that on that point and just anybody just I mean I I'll respond to that. Um what I had seen I looked at a couple other

cities and what they had done is that they had done a work as you know u commissioner Roberts had described the some kind of workshop in which uh the public was invited in the you know planning or council was invited to sort of have a bit more of an open dialogue regarding what they did and didn't want in the actual ODS. Um, seems like based off of the completeness that I'm seeing of this document so far, it seems like we've passed that step already. However, you know, if if we wanted to give this a once over again, as you know, 72 hours isn't a ton of time uh to review a document of this nature. Um, I mean, for holistic review sake, I mean, I'm not against continuing for us to look at this. I do agree the the weight of this WIGGHT of this document is definitely uh important considering our uh uh current situation uh with the state. So uh I'd want to be thorough and

Commissioner Johnson, do you have a comment?

So I think the document is very complete. Um I do just to go back on the contemporary just if if I may a little bit. Um all of the pictures that they depicted for the contemporary tended to be like commercial buildings versus like a you know that I know these buildings even this one isn't oh no excuse me like the one you know I know where that is off of uh I think it's Walnut. these all tend to be commercial buildings rather than residential homes and then or multi you know multi-story homes. I don't know if that was the intent of that but um so I that's one thing that I have a a issue with. I think I think it's very hard uh to the chair I think it's almost impossible as you said to get all the details in to make this totally there's nothing to be you know it's the I don't know that we could ever say well you're going to have this railing take a picture of this railing and not this railing and for each one of these styles I think it'll be very difficult um I however I do like I think it was someone I don't remember which commissioner said this about making something saying uh that maybe you know the commercial style shouldn't be in a specific area or uh at least if we're going to use pictures of the commercial style in this document it should be more like the commercial houses that I see here which would be Merrick uh Merryill gardens on Balffor if that's one of the ones that you mentioned instead of commercial you know commercial properties that are like literally uh office buildings. Um I think that would not be appropriate. Uh I just have one question. I don't know if it's who who

answers this if it's uh Jennifer or not, but is there a time frame that we are supposed to be doing like you know is this supposed to be approved in a given time frame uh that's out there? There is no legal time frame. There's no legal time frame. We are we are currently covered with our intram objective design standards. Okay. Um they are not that hefty. Um so we you know obviously would be better suited to have something more comprehensively in place but there is no legal time frame that we are uh need to abide by at this time.

Okay. Um, other than that, you know, uh, Chair Roberts, I mean, excuse me. I'm I'm one one council behind, but ameritus chair, uh, you know, wanting more time. I mean, I'm not like against it. I, you know, I think this is a very comprehensive document. Um and as uh vice chair said uh we may be beyond that point but and we don't seem to have a time frame you know that this needs to be done in a certain time frame. So I guess I'm open to that. Uh my only comments are you know making sure that that commercial style represents homes rather in we document as much rather than commercial buildings that are uh because that is not and then the homes that we do see I don't are there any homes that are currently you you said there are homes where are the homes homes that are contemporary

um currently there's a develop ment called Kindred and Balffor. It is actually right behind Merryill Gardens. So if you turn um at the intersection of Merill Gardens and the golf course, it is that the new single family homes right behind that. I don't recall if it's gated. I think it's gated. Yeah. So I don't know if you can get in there. Somerset too, right? Okay. Correct. In front of Somerset too. I went down there one time. I'm trying to remember if what it looks like. Um,

and there's also, well, it's under construction, but, uh, old, formerly known as Cow Ranch in the Meadows, which will be on the other side of Marsh Creek, uh, is more of a contemporary style that was recently approved just last year, but those are under construction and so not near the anywhere that you could see at this time, but you can find their plans on our development projects page. Yes, I I am of the opinion that you know the as everybody has commented about the commercial issue that is an issue for me personally especially when you're looking at it as uh commercial development and you're going to apply it to homes which uh I don't necessarily I think this is a complete document. I don't know that we're going to get much better. I don't know that you can add enough detail to make it ironclad. That would be my concern there. Um, and then I don't to be honest with you, I don't even know if we want to add that much detail because we would end up like you ever drive through a community and every house looks like the other house right next door to it because it's cookie cutter because it's exact carbon copies and I don't want to live in a community that is exact carbon copies where every house looks like every other house. So, um, but other than that, I think the job was a well done job. is a great document. I don't know if we're going to get there, but I'm open to uh anything else other than that.

If we were going to continue this, I'm just I'm curious on the areas that would need to get expanded upon. I know I had brought up the idea of if there's an adjective, have a picture to describe it or some other language that uniquely identifies it uh as it's assigned to a style. Um, I just wanted to get a picture of what that might look like if we were to continue it just so that my my own reference. That's that's a valid question. I'll be getting to that in a minute. I just want to get a feel from all the commissioners. I haven't heard from Commissioner Jones yet.

Yeah, thank you. Um, I I would say I I do think that this is a complete document. Um, I think if we're extending it, it's purely for the purposes of allowing more time to review it. Um I don't know how much more we would ultimately add to it or ultimately how much we would change. I think the only thing from my perspective is uh the contemporary component and not having that as a part of housing. Um that would be my recommended change. Um outside of that I I think this is a complete document and um again not going to stand in the way of extension if that is what the majority of the the commission wants to do. Uh but I I'm not sure how much more we would you know we would ultimately come to but you know of course I'm not you guys I'm just me so you know so I I I'm I think we have a complete document. I'd like to take the contemporary component out of it. Um and and that's that's where I sit.

And Chair Mis, do you want do you want to add add anything on the uh idea of an extension or

Well, yeah. I'm I I'm not going to be able to participate in voting on this tonight because I do need more time to review this document. Um I know the citizens of Brentwood are counting on each one of us to to move through this process um responsibly. It is a complete document, but there are quite a few things that I would like to take a second look at u maybe even a third look at. and there questions that I might have for both the planning department and or the author of this document. So, with that said, um there's no question in my mind it's a complete document, but there are a lot of technical pieces to this complete document and I for one, as much as it's being said, this is objective. I see developers coming in and being quite subjective with much of what I'm I have read thus far. So, I would like to just have some questions answered. Um, what they are, I don't know at this time, but I do know that it's a technical document and what I've perused through, I would like to have an opportunity to take another look at it. And that's I'm just being very transparent with you. I will not be able to vote on this tonight.

I I feel kind of the same. Um what I would be proposing that we do and I I don't want to um stop discussion tonight. We can talk about it as much as we as we feel like we need to. Everybody get their ideas out. Um, but I I would like to take some more time to reflect on everything I'm hearing because some of the things I'm hearing for the first time, of course, and um uh this is something and uh to echo what Jennifer said is that we we want to get it done. I mean, we don't want to be on the interim objective design standards forever. um they are kind of thin as as mentioned, but I do think that um I I felt rushed on this and uh it is 91 pages of more dense text than than the usual design document. And I I want to consider everything that every everybody said tonight. I want to consider I want to go through more carefully and see if I can find some more examples of where I feel like it's um possibly could be more objective and maybe I can come up with wording that would make me feel better and might make everybody feel better. I don't know. But uh I just feel like time is something that that we could use on this and uh we could we can come back with it as soon as the next meeting. I mean it's a couple weeks and uh you know at that point in time I think people would be able to come back um with carefully worded suggestions of how we should amend it. Um I I feel like I feel almost certainly that people are going to be making amendments. I'm

hearing them everywhere. And uh so I think that as we sit here and talk about them and try to write them and you know, should we make pictures of different railings that will or will not or should we do this, should we do that, I think time to reflect would be kind of nice to have. And um you know, if I was going to make a motion, I would just probably move something like that that we continue the discussion at our next meeting. Is that something that you were con considering? Uh, Chair Maris Roberts, were you considering maybe just just postponing it till the next meeting or something?

Sure. Because uh did you say Lud bypassed this on three separate occasions? Uh yeah, there were there were just scheduling conflicts this I understand but it's been in the the hopper for some time now. So, I don't see the the hurt in it being in the hopper just a little longer.

Um, this was a Lud project and I appreciate it coming before the planning commission. Um, but I do want to do my due diligence in reviewing this in its entirety. So yes, if we can move it to the next planning commission, it will give me time at least to review it to call the um author and or city and have them answer my questions and then bring back to the planning commission the questions that I would have uh with certainty. That would be what I plan on doing with this complete document.

Okay. um through the chair. Uh good planning manager. Good evening, chairperson floor. Um just some comments and questions as I'm sitting here listening to everything.

One is and I wanted to explore uh Commissioner Robert's idea of the the workshop, right, where there'd be this back and forth. I'm not sure that would be the best approach just given where we're at in the process. I think Vice Chair Brand um mentioned that, but we would be happy to sit with you either individually or uh like in groups of, you know, two groups of two and then another individual person. So, we're respecting the Brown Act, of course. Um we'd be happy to do that and potentially even schedule um Tim or one of his associates right at JZMK to assist us in that. and after you've again had some time to go through the documents in a couple weeks. As far as the actual extension, um I think ideally we would continue the item tonight to a specific date right in the future. Um the next one is probably not the best idea. Number one, we were looking to cancel because there's no item scheduled. It's also fall break uh for the schools and I also don't think that would give the commission the time that it really wants with this and then allow us to come back with a staff report and changes. So I think we'd probably be looking either end of October or maybe even the November meeting. And while we're on that note, just wanted to point out that the the meetings for the rest of the year are pretty limited. Uh there's only one meeting in November which excuse me is November 4th and then one meeting in December which is the 2nd. So again the commission has essentially expressed a a desire to have more time with us tonight. So I think getting on the very next meeting just feels ironically a little bit too uh too rushed in that regard. So we should think about what date actually works. I also wanted to point out that if when we do that um that we can ensure that each of the commissioners is in fact available for that meeting we're continuing it too through the chair. I know we had

commented specifically if there was anything that we would recommend to staff to make um at least continue scrubbing the the dock for any other details or changes in you know while we wait for uh whatever subsequent meeting in which this was to return. Um sounds like the the direction of this conversation is kind of moving in that uh in that means. So, uh, is there I'm I'm sort of opening up the idea of does anyone have comments about that?

Are you asking specifically comments about what it is that we'll be looking at? So, I brought up the example of like if we want more specifics to address, you know, I'll call it more nuanced uh design characteristics of various styles

and then have pictures assigned to those uh that I'm that we don't see in the document today. Is there anything like that where we just want to see a bit more of an expansion on um as we move into a future continued meeting? Well, for me, I I would like to just take a look at all of it from parking to um sidewalks to I I want to take a look at the entire document as it relates to the neighborhoods, the tree sizes. I mean, it's a very technical document. Um, a lot of it is it is what it is, but there are some things that I I'd like to spend a little more time. So, specific questions or uh comments to this completed document. I I I'm going to wait until I have an opportunity to really take a look in a deep dive on this.

Okay. Any other comments? Yeah, I I I'll I'll agree with um Chair Marius Roberts that I I think um trying to simultaneously edit the document while we continue to consider it um with fresh eyes. uh it might it might um make it harder for us all to come up with our comments at the next let's let's work with the document as it is um as we do our individual reviews mindful of what's been said tonight by all of us and and uh when we come back we should be prepared to offer um my hope is that we would be prepared to offer constructive um changes like that that we would be ready to kind of offer amendments in a way to the documents that each of us would say I would change this, I would change this, I would change this um as specifically as we can, you know, with with the having had the time to to reflect and think about it on our own. And um at that point I think that we would be able to move something forward if we were if we were prepared unless unless we were just at loggerheads over this or that change. But um that's that's kind of how I have it in my head.

I I can make a motion. Well, Eric, sorry. I I just have a potential suggestion. Um, but a question first would, and I'm just throwing this out there, like an additional two weeks for the commission to kind of go back and do the deep dive into the document. Would that be realistic or would you meet would you need even more time than that? It's realistic for me.

The reason I bring that up is okay, so that basically takes us through end of the month, early October. we could then and again if you're interested schedule individual or small group meetings right with staff in kind of early October to have that extra dialogue and then that would probably put us at that November 4th meeting and as of right now we don't have anything else on the calendar so we could essentially dedicate that meeting to hashing through the rest of it and getting a formal recommendation from the commission so that we could then move it on to the council. So, I probably won't be here at that November 4th meeting. Just want to let you know.

Okay, good. I'm glad I mentioned I'm glad I I threw that out there. Then, anybody else going to be missing from that meeting. I don't believe I have any plans. I can look at my calendar. Okay. Should be okay. I should be okay. I'll be okay. Prefer not to do it over fall break for sure, but uh November's fine. Well, and the other thing is since we're not going to be having we don't have anything scheduled for that October 7th meeting, you wouldn't have to be worried about preparing for that meeting when we're having these individual meetings. So, the the timing just seemed to kind of work out, at least in my head. Or what about the 21st of October?

We could potentially do that. Um, I do see a couple of other items on that agenda. So, h the ODS would not be a standalone item. That that's okay, but uh we got through the Chipotle item tonight. Um but I don't know if it would give enough time for your individual review for any back and forth with staff and then to update the staff report and attachments, including the ODS itself. Well, I think that the seventh is actually three weeks from today, isn't it? because we've got we've got a actually a rare fifth Tuesday in correct three weeks from now. Yeah. Um I could do that

October 7th. Well, oh no, we we wouldn't be actually meeting on the 7th, but we could put we could continue this to the 21st. Okay. If you think that that would give you enough time individually to do the deep dive to meet with staff as needed and then we would of course have to turn around the agenda materials. Well, I I think that at at this it would be fine by me, but what about your staff, the planning department? I mean, does that give you enough time? It I I keep hearing you say that there's some things that you're going to have to put in place as well. So again,

well, so there there'll be a couple of other items on that agenda, the 21st. So this won't be the only agenda item. Mhm. And I guess depending on how the commission's review and those discussions go, I mean, I I don't know, Jennifer, weigh in on this, but I think it's doable. Um, in terms of staff's perspective and putting together the agenda items, from what I'm hearing is you're not looking for staff to make any changes. You don't want to be reviewing one document while staff is working on edits. And so my understanding is that the agenda report that would come back would really just be a summary of tonight's comments in the same attachments as tonight. Is that correct what you're looking for for the next meeting? That's how I'm thinking about it.

Then I think that it would be doable. And also to like you know the discretion of the chair if we get to the 21st meeting and we're running until our late hours that we've seen before we could always continue the ODS to the next meeting after that. Fair enough. Yeah. But yeah everybody good? We need to I'm fine. Do you want to make a motion? I make a motion that we Oops. Just a quick question on because we're talking about getting it on the 7th. I definitely want to participate on this particular deal, but I'm going to be in Miami, which is on the East Coast time zone, which would mean on the 21st.

Oh, the 21st. So, we're going to do it on 21st. And I just Okay, good. I'm good. Okay. So, I'd like to make a motion that we move this agenda item um or extend it to October 21st. Um, at which time we can have a robust conversation and move forward. Can I have a second? Yeah, I'll second that. All in favor? I

I I closed eyes have it right there. We are Let's move on to umformational reports. Uh starting with transplant vice grant. Yeah, the um Tri Delta Transit, they gave us a uh a little bit of a preview of the progress on the um the Glideways project in which um individual cars on their own um call it a dedicated right of way uh would be used to fill the existing gaps in uh public transport uh infrastructure. So, think of, you know, walk, you know, if you were at the streets of Brentwood, you could hop in one of these things and for three bucks it would take you to BART in Antioch, as an example, if you split the thing with two people. Um, really interesting technology. I, you know, I think they're piloting it starting like this month in Atlanta. So, I guess if you happen to be out there, go for it. But, um, yeah, other than that, no, not a whole lot. Thanks. um design review subcommittee. Uh

we didn't meet. Okay. Um that sounds familiar. Uh Lud, we also uh did not meet yesterday. Uh we had been planning to discuss the thing we've just been talking about here. So, um and again, if anybody's listening to me out there, um you'll want to pay attention to this. We're going to bring it back on the 21st. So, it's important. Um, and the, uh, Princewood Municipal Code Review Committee. No meeting. I got to got to talk with Darren about that because I think we still I think we're overdue now. Okay. And, uh, moving on. Uh, future agenda item requests.

No, we didn't. Um, I have a a future agenda item request actually. Um what I've noticed in social media and some other venues is that um people have been saying things about expressing doubts or curiosity about why sometimes staff will make a recommendation and uh the commission or the city council will move in the opposite direction. Um, and I've seen people campaign on, oh, I'm I I trust staff and I would always do what they said. And I've seen other people that say, no, wait a minute. And it it struck me, I I don't really know enough about how staff evaluates the applications and what all of their criteria are. And I I think in fairness to staff, because sometimes I see people get mad at staff too because they recommend a project that isn't popular. And I think that's also unfair. I what I'd like to do is have a a discussion just to to decide or not to decide but to find out a little bit more about how staff decides things compared to how we review it as commission or as the city council would review it. and um kind of clarify why that can happen like why we can come to a different decision and why that's all right and um I think a lot of people don't understand it and I find that when I'm trying to explain it to people I don't quite have enough insight to give them and you know so I'd like to uh consider that and have I have I given you enough to make um uh uh an agenda item with

chairperson floor. Yes, I think you have. Um, and the way we've done this in the past since you brought this up tonight, we would bring it back to the next meeting for a little bit more of a discussion and then get consensus from the commission in terms of how to move forward. Um, but I do see this potentially as an item we could bring back um, and have that sort of back and forth. I will say it's not going to be super scientific, right? There's not a formula that staff follows necessarily. Uh, but it's definitely a process and um I think it could be uh informative for a lot of folks including the public. So, we'll put it back on the next agenda when we come back on the 21st.

I really appreciate that. I I just I just feel like the public um is not well informed on this topic and I think they should be. Okay. Uh the next regular planning commission meeting is scheduled for um October 7th, 2025 at 7 p.m. Um and will be held here at council chambers located at 150 City Parkway unless it gets cancelled too. And uh I need one more motion. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I I